COST Action 869, Working Group 4: Evaluation of projects in example areas: The Swiss Midland Lakes. June 24 - 26, 2009, Nottwil (CH)

Final Report July 2009

Organization Committee - Christian Stamm, Main Organizer, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), Dübendorf - Josef Blum, AgroEcoConsult, Sempach, formerly: Department for Agriculture and Forest Canton Lucerne - Emmanuel Frossard, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ETH Zürich, Lindau - Astrid Oberson, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ETH Zürich, Lindau - Volker Prasuhn, Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Zürich Eawag: Das Wasserforschungs-Institut des ETH-Bereichs

COST Action 869 - WG4 Meeting 2009 Nottwil (CH) Final Report

Scope and form of the workshop:

The goal of the workshop was to share experiences on mitigation success and failure stories across Europe. We used the case study of Lake Sempach as a starting point. On the first day (June 24), the participants were welcomed by the head of the Cantonal Parliament of Lucerne. Not only being the highest representative of the Canton, but also as biologist A. Borgula explained why mitigation was an important topic for the region where the workshop took place. Afterwards, two further introductory lectures were given. The first by E. Frossard put the workshop into the larger context of the entire COST Action 869. The second one by C. Stamm was devoted to present the study case and to highlight major steps during the process of eutrophication and mitigation experienced by the lake over the last 40 years. The bike tour after dinner got the participants around the entire lake with two stops for explanations. J. Blum, the local organizer, explained the technical details of the lake aeration and activities along the lake shore for teaching school classes.

The second day was devoted to field and farm visits in the region. On three farms with fairly different philosophies and economic structure the participants were introduced into specific aspects of mitigation programmes in Switzerland and in the specific region to tackle problems of P losses from agriculture. Nutrient balances and direct payments, retention ponds, buffer stripes and no-till practices were the major topics presented. The visits were guided by experienced people from Cantonal authorities (J. Blum, F. Stadelmann, W. Sturny) with the farmers (J. Ineichen-Bieri, H.-P. Fleischlin-Gloor, F. Rösli-Jurt) present for discussing specific questions. This opportunity was much appreciated and participants were intensively discussing their experiences with the farmers.

In the afternoon, the specific experiences on single farms were put into a larger socio-economic context. B. Meier presented an economic analysis of how mitigation programmes had affected structural change in agriculture of the study area. The results indicate that positive short-term effects might be counter-balanced in the long run because structural changes on farms may be severely slowed down rendering these farms vulnerable to economic problems in the future. The second presentation of the afternoon session shed light onto an aspect very different from economics. It addressed how the behaviour of farmers may be affected by the exchange of ideas with other farmers and how this may be used by extension services. P. Fry introduced an innovative approach by using videos with interviews with farmers telling their experiences, e.g., on no-till farming, in their own language (Swiss dialects) on their own land. One of the videos had been subtitled in English and was shown the first time to an international audience.

2/8

COST Action 869 - WG4 Meeting 2009 Nottwil (CH) Final Report

The final two presentations were given by a representative of the association of the municipalities in the lake catchment, and by a speaker presenting on behalf of the Federal Offices for the Environment as well as the Federal Offices for Agriculture. These two talks gave the participants an impression of how authorities at different levels have experienced the problems of eutrophication and what will be important for the future development from their point of view. During the Conference Dinner at Lucerne, the participants had ample time to discuss their impressions and exchange ideas in a beautiful surrounding.

The third day was devoted to present and discuss the experiences from the different countries. The scope of the presentations was very broad. On the one hand, the talks and poster presentations demonstrated the large variability with regard to agricultural, economic or climatic conditions that need to be taken into consideration when talking about mitigation across Europe. Nevertheless, the involvement of stakeholders including farmers was a recurring theme and several promising approaches had been presented. On the other hand, topics like how to deal with scientific uncertainty regarding the efficiency of mitigation options or the question whether a change in human diet will be required were discussed. This wide perspective was also reflected in the (short) final discussion that was structured according to the three topics “What can we transfer to other regions or countries?”, “How is collaborative action possible despite significant uncertainties regarding mitigation options?”, and “Do we need to optimize within given boundary conditions or do we need to change them (e.g., less meat in human diets)?”.

The workshop was a successful event of scientific exchange. It was attended by participants from scientists from 20 countries. Given the topic, the audience was not restricted to researchers but entailed practitioners as well (from the host country as well as from across Europe). This was a fruitful combination fostering specific and targeted discussion and exchange of ideas on mitigation and implementation. In concrete terms, the workshop resulted in the possibility of linking activities on pilot farms in different countries and to present the Swiss videos on environmentally friendly farming practices abroad. The discussions profited a lot from the high quality of most presentations. They were to the point and well prepared and presented. Obviously, the country coordinators had done a good job in selecting the people delegated to the workshop. Accordingly, the participants were actively involved during the entire duration of the workshop. As a side effect of the lively scientific exchange the excursion gave the opportunity to a local newspaper to participate in the excursion. An article in the Swiss newspaper for the farming community (“Schweizer Bauer”) published on July 1, 2009, summarized important aspects that popped up during the discussion with the international experts on the issues (see attachment).

3/8

COST Action 869 - WG4 Meeting 2009 Nottwil (CH) Final Report

Programme: Day 1: Arrival, Introduction 15:00

Arrival, Registration

16:00

Welcome (Adrian Borgula, biologist, President of the Cantonal Parliament Lucerne)

16:10

Introduction to the workshop (E. Frossard, P. Strauss)

16:30

The Lake Sempach case study: Overview of 30 years of research (C. Stamm)

17:30

Dinner

19:00

Bike tour around Lake Sempach

Day 2: “The Swiss Experience” 08:30

Field visits (2 groups, on 3 farms) (organizer: J. Blum, consultant)

12:45

Lunch (on a farm)

13:30

Return to conference center

14:00

Socio-economic evaluation of mitigation programs in the Lake Sempach area (B. Meier, consultant)

14:45

New approaches to communicate with farmers (P. Fry, consultant)

15:30

Coffee break

16:00

Involving the public / municipalities (J. Peter, president of the association of the municipalities within the lake catchment, mayor of Neuenkirch)

16.30

What are the lessons learned by the federal agencies? V. Kessler (Federal Office for Agriculture, FOA)

19:00

Dinner in Lucerne

Day 3: Experiences from other European countries and beyond

08:30

How to account for the uncertainty of mitigation options in implementing management strategies? (Brian Kronvang, Dk)

09:15

Collaborative approaches to the development and implementation of agri-environmental measures in the UK (Nigel Watson, UK)

09:35

Pilot farmers as ambassadors of excellent agricultural practice (Frans Aarts, Wageningen, NL)

09:55

Decreasing nutrient leaching at country and county level in Sweden (Anuschka Heeb, Se) 4/8

COST Action 869 - WG4 Meeting 2009 Nottwil (CH) Final Report

10:15

Coffee break, Poster presentation (Titles see below)

Day 3: Experiences from other European countries and beyond (Continuation)

11:00

Integrated projects in the region of lake Vansjø, Norway for reduced phosphorus runoff from vegetable fields (Anne Falk Øgaard, No)

11:20

Measures for decreasing of water resources pollution in Slovak Republic (Jaroslav Antal, Sk)

11:40

Human nutrition as key to nutrient emissions into water (Simon Thaler, A)

12.00

Lunch

13.30

Nutrient mitigation options in agricultural landscapes– the New Zealand experience (Deborah J. Ballantine, NZ)

13.50

Mitigation measures to reduce agricultural nitrogen and phosphorus losses in Ireland (Nicholas Holden, Ie)

14:10

Irrigated agriculture improvements to reduce aquifer pollution: a case study from a Portuguese vulnerable area (Daniela Valente Simões dos Santos, Pt)

14:30

Pedagogic tools incorporated into Territ’eau Framework to protect the water quality (Sylvie Guiet, F)

14:50

How to ensure long term effects of mitigation? - Example from the EU-Life project AGWAPLAN (Irene Wiborg, Dk)

15:10

Coffee Break

15:40

Final discussion: what can we learn out of 30 years „Lake Sempach“ and examples from other countries?

16:30

Closure

Posters: Franz Stadelmann (CH)

Agricultural measures to restore the Swiss midland lakes (Sempach, Baldegg, Hallwil)

Klaus Isermann (D)

Multiplicity, effectiveness and efficiency of a healthy human nutrition in respect both to human health and environment

Uwe Schindler (D)

Land use and agricultural management effects on deep drainage and solute leaching

Nick Holden (Ie)

Development of a sustainable nutrient management decision support system for Ireland

M. Iggy Litaor (Is)

The Agmon lake-wetland complex: A Mediterranean example of land use change from farming to ecotourism

5/8

COST Action 869 - WG4 Meeting 2009 Nottwil (CH) Final Report

Antanas Sigitas Sileika (Li) Drainage and groundwater quality change after construction of manure storage in the demonstration cow farm M.I.P de Lima (Pt)

Vulnerability of water bodies to diffuse pollution in small islands: a hydrological perspective

E. Filiche (Ro)

The impact of soil erosion on the quality of groundwater as drinking water source in Perieni County

Barbro Ulén (Se)

Focus on phosphorus (P) at catchment level in Sweden

Goswin Heckrath (Dk)

A P Index-based mitigation planning tool for reducing phosphorus losses from land to water in Denmark

Claudia Hahn (CH)

Artificial rainfall experiments on the Swiss Plateau to assess phosphorus losses from soils and manure

Frank Liebisch (CH)

Soil and plant indicators to minimize phosphate inputs in permanent grasslands

Nadine Kon (CH)

Mapping of contributing areas for diffuse water pollution - a study of feasibility

cs, July 7, 2009

6/8

COST Action 869 - WG4 Meeting 2009 Nottwil (CH) Final Report

Appendices

Appendix 1: Final list of participants Appendix 2: Book of abstracts Appendix 3: Excursion programme Appendix 4: Copy of an article published in the newspaper “Schweizer Bauer” (in German)

7/8

COST Action 869 - WG4 Meeting 2009 Nottwil (CH) Final Report

Appendix 1: Final list of participants Country Austria Austria Czech Rep. Czech Rep. Denmark Denmark Denmark Denmark France France Germany Germany Germany Hungary Ireland Israel Israel Lithuania Lithuania Luxembourg Netherlands Netherlands New Zealand Norway Norway Poland Portugal Portugal Romania Romania Romania Slovakia Sweden Sweden Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland UK

Delegate Peter Strauss Simon Thaler Josef Hejzlar Jindrich Duras Goswin Heckrath Irene Asta Wiborg Gitte Rubaek Brian Kronvang Sylvie Guiet Pierre Moreau Uwe Schindler Klaus Isermann Markus Venohr Marton Vona Nick Holden Iggy Litaor Moshe Shenker Antanas Sigitas Sileika Kazimieras Gaigalis Andreas Krein Wim Chardon Frans Aarts Deborah Ballantine Marianne Bechmann Anne Falk Øgaard Leszek Hejduk Daniela Santos João Pedroso de Lima Daniela Dana Romulus Mocanu Ana Maria Dodocioiu Jaroslav Antal Barbro Ulén Anuschka Heeb Emmanuel Frossard Christian Stamm Beat Meier Patricia Fry Josef Peter Victor Kessler Astrid Oberson Volker Prasuhn Sepp Blum Frank Liebisch Claudia Hahn Georges Chassot Nadine Konz Anton Candinas Arno Stöckli Franz Stadelmann Walter Richner Nigel Watson

Day of participation Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Thu - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Thu Thu Thu - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Wed - Fri Fri Fri Fri Fri Wed - Fri Fri Tue - Fri 8/8

COST Action 869, Working Group 4 Evaluation of projects in example areas: The Swiss Midland Lakes June 24 - 26, 2009, Nottwil, Switzerland

Programme and Abstract Book

Scope and form of the workshop The goal of the workshop is to share experiences on mitigation success and failure stories across Europe. We use the case study of Lake Sempach as a starting point. After introductory presentations on the first day (June 24) the second day is devoted to actual field and farm visits in the region. Participants will have the possibility to exchange experiences with farmers and representatives from public authorities. Additionally, innovative approaches in communication between science, administration and farmers are presented. The third day is devoted to present and discuss the experiences from the different countries with the goal to identify key features that are relevant for success stories in mitigation programs. In this booklet, abstracts of the lectures are sorted chronologically according to the programme. Abstracts of posters follow, sorted alphabetically by first Author. All abstracts have been edited into a common style but not in their content.

Organizers Christian Stamm, Main Organizer Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag) Ueberlandstrasse 133, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland [email protected] Josef Blum AgroEcoConsult Hubelweid 12, 6204 Sempach, Switzerland [email protected] Emmanuel Frossard ETH Zürich, Institute of Plant Sciences Eschikon 33, 8315 Lindau, Switzerland [email protected] Astrid Oberson ETH Zürich, Institute of Plant Sciences Eschikon 33, 8315 Lindau, Switzerland [email protected] Volker Prasuhn Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART Reckenholzstrasse 191, 8046 Zürich, Switzerland [email protected]

2

Programme Day 1: Arrival, Introduction Wednesday, June 24th, 2009 15:00

Arrival, Registration

16:00

Welcome (A. Borgula, biologist, President of the Cantonal Parliament Lucerne)

16:10

Introduction to the workshop (E. Frossard, Peter Strauss)

16:30

The Lake Sempach case study: Overview of 30 years of research (C. Stamm)

17:30

Apero & Dinner

19:00

Bike tour around Lake Sempach

Day 2: “The Swiss Experience” Thursday, June 25th, 2009 08:30

Field visits (2 groups, on 3 farms) (organizer: J. Blum, consultant)

12:45

Lunch (on a farm)

13:30

Return to conference center

14:00

Socio-economic evaluation of mitigation programs in the Lake Sempach area (B. Meier, consultant)

14:45

New approaches to communicate with farmers (P. Fry, consultant)

16:00

Involving the public / municipalities (J. Peter, president of the association of the municipalities within the lake catchment, mayor of Neuenkirch)

16.30

What are the lessons learned by the federal agencies? (V. Kessler Federal Office for Agriculture (FOA) and a representative of the Federal Office for the Environment (FOE); each 15 min)

19:00

Dinner in Lucerne

3

Day 3: Experiences from other European countries and beyond Friday, June 26th, 2009 08:30

How to account for the uncertainty of mitigation options in implementing management strategies? (B. Kronvang, DK)

09:15

Collaborative approaches to the development and implementation of agrienvironmental measures in the UK (D. Doody, UK)

09:35

Pilot farmers as ambassadors of excellent agricultural practice (F. Aarts, NL)

09:55

Decreasing nutrient leaching at country and county level in Sweden (A. Heeb, SE)

10:15

Coffee break, Poster presentation (Titles see below)

11:00

Integrated projects in the region of lake Vansjø, Norway for reduced phosphorus runoff from vegetable fields (A. Falk Øgaard, NO)

11:20

Measures for decreasing of water resources pollution in Slovak Republic (J. Noskovič, SK)

11:40

Human nutrition as key to nutrient emissions into water (S. Thaler, AT)

12.00

Lunch

13.30

Nutrient mitigation options in agricultural landscapes– the New Zealand experience (D. J. Ballantine, NZ)

13.50

Mitigation measures to reduce agricultural nitrogen and phosphorus losses in Ireland (H. Tunney, IE)

14:10

Irrigated agriculture improvements to reduce aquifer pollution: a case study from a Portuguese vulnerable area (D. Santos, PT)

14:30

Pedagogic tools incorporated into Territ’eau Framework to protect the water quality (S. Guiet, FR)

14:50

How to ensure long term effects of mitigation? - Example from the EU-Life project AGWAPLAN (I. Wiborg, DK)

15:10

Coffee Break

15:40

Final discussion: what can we learn out of 30 years „Lake Sempach“ and examples from other countries?

16:30

Closure 4

Posters First author

Title

P. Csathó (HU)

Quo vadis, legislation on agro-environmental protection in the European Union? A Forum

M.I.P. de Lima (PT)

Vulnerability of water bodies to diffuse pollution in small islands: a hydrological perspective

E. Filiche (RO)

The impact of soil erosion on the quality of groundwater as drinking water source in Perieni County

C. Hahn (CH)

Artificial rainfall experiments on the Swiss Plateau to assess phosphorus losses from soils and manure

G. Heckrath (DK)

A P Index-based mitigation planning tool for phosphorus losses from land to water in Denmark

J. Hejzlar (CZ):

The effect of fertilization rate and proportion of arable land/grassland areas on nitrate concentration in the catchments of four drinking water reservoirs in Czech Republic.

N. Holden (IE)

Development of a sustainable nutrient management decision support system for Ireland

K. Isermann (DE)

Multifunctionality, effectiveness and efficiency of a healthy human nutrition also in respect to the eutrophication of the hydrosphere

N. Konz (CH)

Mapping of “contributing areas” for diffuse water pollution – a study of feasibility

F. Liebisch (CH)

Soil and plant indicators to minimize phosphate inputs in permanent grasslands

M. I. Litaor (IL)

The Agmon lake-wetland complex: A Mediterranean example of land use change from farming to ecotourism

U. Schindler (DE)

Land use and agricultural management effects on deep drainage and solute leaching

A. S. Sileika (LT)

Drainage and groundwater quality change after construction of manure storage in the demonstration cow farm

F. Stadelmann (CH)

Agricultural measures to restore the Swiss midland lakes (Sempach, Baldegg, Hallwil)

B. Ulén (SE)

Focus on phosphorus (P) at catchment level in Sweden

reducing

5

6

The Lake Sempach case study: Overview of 30 years of research Christian Stamm Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), Dübendorf, Switzerland Signs of eutrophication have been observed in the Lake Sempach since the 1960s. Since that time, the implementation of mitigation measures tackling urban and agricultural sources of phosphorus input have been closely linked to research on the causes behind eutrophication and possibilities for remediation. This presentation summarizes the temporal evolution of the status of the lake and how research on the real system helped to elucidate interplay of lake-internal and external processes. Special emphasis will be put on the understanding of agricultural P losses. While these losses were considered of minor importance in the 1970s based on the available data, monitoring in the lake tributaries revealed strongly increased loads by the mid 1980s. This observation fostered investigations clarifying the role of different processes causing the high P export from the grassland dominated catchment. Today, the P concentrations have been reduced below a critical concentration of 30 mg/m3. It will be demonstrated that the rate of decrease can only be understood by considering the interplay between lake-internal P cycling and reduced P input due to external mitigation measures. However, observations in the area as well as findings in the literature suggest that unexpected changes of the system might occur in the future. Hence, careful monitoring of the system remains a crucial task.

7

Socio-economic evaluation of mitigation programs in the Lake Sempach area Beat Meier bemepro, Winterthur, Switzerland In order to reduce the inflow of phosphorus in the Midland lakes of Sempach, Baldegg and Hall-wil, the Canton Lucerne introduced specific P-projects, the first of them starting in 1999. These projects, financed by the Canton and the Swiss Federation, offer the farms in the catchments of these lakes several voluntary measures to reduce P-losses, the “Lake-Contract” being the most important element. Farms with a Lake-Contract agree not only to adopt different methods to re-duce runoff but also to bring down their farm phosphorus balance below 100% (while the national cross-compliance scheme allows a surplus of 10%). The latter requirement can be met by reducing livestock density, using N/P-reduced feed or exporting P via manure supply agreements. Structural change in terms of the decrease of the number of farms between 1999 and 2006 is much slower in the Canton of Lucerne (-9%) compared to the Swiss average (-14%). Within the catchment area, the decrease is even lower (4%). The design of the analysis doesn’t allow to prove a causal influence of the P-projects, but such an effect seems possible. The relatively slow de-crease of the number of farms corresponds with a slower than average increase in farm size. In addition, it can be shown that within the catchments, compared to neighbouring areas outside, more often farms with relatively small production branches (dairy, pigs) invest in increasing them. What the P-balance allows (including possibilities of P-exports) seems to have more influ-ence than the disadvantages from a microeconomic point of view. These are major problems in a medium term perspective, as production costs are far from international competitiveness and economies of scale must play a key role in narrowing the gap. Between 1999 and 2006 the total number of livestock increases in the districts of Sursee and Hochdorf by 6.3%. The increase is slightly smaller within the catchments of the lakes (5.4%) com-pared to the area outside (6.8%). Within the catchments the increase in farms that sooner or later sign a “Lake-Contract” is considerably higher at 8.5%. This can be explained by the lower live-stock density in these farms in 1999 and the fact, that farms willing to grow would only get a permission to construct new stables if they submit themselves to the conditions of the “Lake-Contract”. To meet the requirements of these contracts, N/P-reduced feed has become a standard and exporting P via manure supply agreements is essential. An analysis of these contracts shows that farms in the catchments triple their net exports of phosphorus (P2O5) from 25 tonnes in 1999 to 79 tonnes in 2006. For future policies concerning water protection it is essential to clearly distinguish permanent payments for positive external effects from measures to eliminate a pollution problem. The latter must be temporary and the direction of the structural adjustment processes must be known and considered in design. This is the only way to assure that along with ecological improvements also economically sustainable structures can evolve.

8

New approaches to communicate with farmers: Enhancing social learning processes for soil and water conservation in Switzerland Patricia Fry Knowledge Management Environment, Zurich, Switzerland Bridging the gap between scientific analysis and farmer action is a major challenge when implementing soil and water conservation measures (SWC). On the basis of the comparison between scientific and farmer perception of soil the innovative and transdisciplinary implementation project “From Farmer to Farmer” was conducted in the midlands of Switzerland 2002 - 2009. The main ideas of the approach are the following: In a first step arguments of farmers are worked out by means of interviews and film. These farmers have successfully implemented soil conserving methods in collaboration with soil scientists during several years. By doing so the aims, methods and contexts of farmer work are integrated (Fry 2001). Five short films have been produced: “From plowing to direct drilling”, “mulch seeding”, “strip tilling”, “direct drilling” and “soil regeneration and activation”. The films show people working at the farm, special machines during action and crop in several stages. The experience and specific language of farmers enhances the credibility and enables a personal identification. In a second step these videos are shown at informal farmer assemblies as well as at agricultural schools in order to trigger social learning processes. The project also bridges the gap between scientists and practitioners by building and organizing an accompanying group – a trading zone - which consists of all relevant actor groups, institutions of agriculture and soil protection as well as several agricultural associations. All these actors accompany the production of the films. This group meets regularly and in a way that all the actors can interact freely. The project is supported by two federal departments - agriculture and environment -, all the cantons as well as four farmer organizations. The pilot phase started in 2002 testing the project steps. The main phase lasted from 2003 to 2007. Until the beginning of 2010 three additional films are produced and introduced to the farmers. The project was accompanied by researchers from the University of Berne. Their findings show that this innovative way of communicating with farmers is effective on several levels (Schneider et al. 2009).

9

Experience of the federal government in implementing projects on phosphorus Victor Kessler Federal Office for Agriculture, Bern, Switzerland For the last ten years the federal government has been providing contributions to support the phosphorous projects for Lakes Sempach, Baldegg and Hallwil according to Article 62a of the Water Protection Act. Two federal agencies involved - the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) and the Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG) - now find the overall results to be positive. The lakes are doing much better. The experience shows that the strategy chosen and the measures taken were right. To continue the projects and to organise the best possible measures the federal government has to find answers to various research questions arising from the change in the quality of the water of the lakes. The three lakes are now in much better condition. Lake Sempach has 21mg /m3 P and Lake Baldegg has 26 mg/m3 P. In the early 1980s the level of P in Lake Baldegg was still above 500 mg/m3. At the beginning of the 1980s, phosphates were banned in laundry detergents and P was removed in sewage treatment plants, which brought about a marked reduction in P inputs. Since 1982, measures have also been introduced within the lakes (aeration and assisted circulation) and, starting in 1998, projects have been implemented in the catchment areas of the lakes, according to Art. 62a of the Water Protection Act. In the areas of the project, there is financial compensation for measures to reduce runoff, leaching and enrichment of P, which go beyond the requirements of the ordinance on direct payments. In addition to reduced P discharges, which must be lower than the needs of the cultures, direct seeding, wider buffer strips, non-fertilised areas and structural measures are all required. In addition, innovative projects are promoted when there is a reduction in the number of animals on the land. The agriculture department is responsible for implementation. A six-year contract between the Federal Office for Agriculture and the cantonal specialised services guarantees payment of a federal contribution (50 to 80% of the costs). There is no compensation from the federal government for preliminary investigations and additional studies on the catchment areas, inflows, outflows and the lakes. In the course of implementation, the legal framework was supplemented by the federal government and by the canton. In September 2002, under pressure from the federal government, the cantonal ordinance on phosphorus was brought into force, linking the number of farm animals to care for the soil. This actually fixed the number of animals. At the beginning of 2008, an 80% reduction of P fertilisation on land of types D and E became mandatory at the federal level. This measure, which was initially subsidised, can no longer receive compensation in future projects or in extensions of contracts. Although there has been a decrease in algal-available P, the amount of particle bound P has risen. The source of this is currently under investigation. It is thought that this is attributable to P from land used for agriculture and from the beds of inflowing rivers and streams. After the intermediate target of